*[PATCH v12 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework@ 2019-08-12 18:24 Brendan Higgins
2019-08-12 18:24 ` [PATCH v12 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core Brendan Higgins
` (17 more replies)0 siblings, 18 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Brendan Higgins @ 2019-08-12 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: frowand.list, gregkh, jpoimboe, keescook, kieran.bingham, mcgrof,
peterz, robh, sboyd, shuah, tytso, yamada.masahiro
Cc: devicetree, dri-devel, kunit-dev, linux-doc, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kbuild, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest, linux-nvdimm,
linux-um, Alexander.Levin, Tim.Bird, amir73il, dan.carpenter,
daniel, jdike, joel, julia.lawall, khilman, knut.omang, logang,
mpe, pmladek, rdunlap, richard, rientjes, rostedt, wfg,
Brendan Higgins
## TL;DR
This revision removes dependence on kunit_stream in favor of
kunit_assert, as suggested by Stephen Boyd. kunit_assert provides a more
structured interface for constructing messages and allows most required
data to be stored on the stack for most expectations until it is
determined that a failure message must be produced.
As a part of introducing kunit_assert, expectations (KUNIT_EXPECT_*) and
assertions (KUNIT_ASSERT_*) have been substantially refactored.
Nevertheless, behavior should be the same.
As this revision, adds a new patch, it, [PATCH v12 04/18], needs to be
reviewed. All other patches have appropriate reviews and acks.
I also rebased the patchset on v5.3-rc3.
## Background
This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
framework for the Linux kernel.
Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework;
it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM
(however, KUnit still allows you to run tests on test machines or in VMs
if you want[1]) and does not require tests to be written in userspace
running on a host kernel. Additionally, KUnit is fast: From invocation
to completion KUnit can run several dozen tests in about a second.
Currently, the entire KUnit test suite for KUnit runs in under a second
from the initial invocation (build time excluded).
KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and
Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining
unit test cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing
common infrastructure for running tests, mocking, spying, and much more.
### What's so special about unit testing?
A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation,
hence the name. There should be no dependencies outside the control of
the test; this means no external dependencies, which makes tests orders
of magnitudes faster. Likewise, since there are no external dependencies,
there are no hoops to jump through to run the tests. Additionally, this
makes unit tests deterministic: a failing unit test always indicates a
problem. Finally, because unit tests necessarily have finer granularity,
they are able to test all code paths easily solving the classic problem
of difficulty in exercising error handling code.
### Is KUnit trying to replace other testing frameworks for the kernel?
No. Most existing tests for the Linux kernel are end-to-end tests, which
have their place. A well tested system has lots of unit tests, a
reasonable number of integration tests, and some end-to-end tests. KUnit
is just trying to address the unit test space which is currently not
being addressed.
### More information on KUnit
There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that
describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests.
For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here[2].
Additionally for convenience, I have applied these patches to a
branch[3]. The repo may be cloned with:
git clone https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux
This patchset is on the kunit/rfc/v5.3/v12 branch.
## Changes Since Last Version
- Dropped patch "[PATCH v11 04/18] kunit: test: add kunit_stream a
std::stream like logger" and replaced it with "[PATCH v12 04/18]
kunit: test: add assertion printing library", which provides a totally
new mechanism for constructing expectation/assertion failure messages.
- Substantially refactored expectations and assertions definitions in
[PATCH 05/18] and [PATCH 11/18] respectively.
- Rebased patchset on v5.3-rc3.
- Fixed a minor documentation bug.
[1] https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/usage.html#kunit-on-non-uml-architectures
[2] https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/
[3] https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux/+/kunit/rfc/v5.3/v12
--
2.23.0.rc1.153.gdeed80330f-goog
^permalinkrawreply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread

*[PATCH v12 15/18] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit
2019-08-12 18:24 [PATCH v12 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Brendan Higgins
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2019-08-12 18:24 ` [PATCH v12 14/18] kunit: defconfig: add defconfigs for building " Brendan Higgins
@ 2019-08-12 18:24 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-08-13 4:46 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-08-12 18:24 ` [PATCH v12 16/18] MAINTAINERS: add entry for KUnit the unit testing framework Brendan Higgins
` (2 subsequent siblings)17 siblings, 1 reply; 60+ messages in thread
From: Brendan Higgins @ 2019-08-12 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: frowand.list, gregkh, jpoimboe, keescook, kieran.bingham, mcgrof,
peterz, robh, sboyd, shuah, tytso, yamada.masahiro
Cc: devicetree, dri-devel, kunit-dev, linux-doc, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kbuild, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest, linux-nvdimm,
linux-um, Alexander.Levin, Tim.Bird, amir73il, dan.carpenter,
daniel, jdike, joel, julia.lawall, khilman, knut.omang, logang,
mpe, pmladek, rdunlap, richard, rientjes, rostedt, wfg,
Brendan Higgins, Felix Guo, Jonathan Corbet
Add documentation for KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework.
- Add intro and usage guide for KUnit
- Add API reference
Signed-off-by: Felix Guo <felixguoxiuping@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
---
Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst | 1 +
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst | 16 +
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst | 14 +
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/faq.rst | 62 +++
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst | 79 +++
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst | 180 ++++++
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 576 ++++++++++++++++++++
7 files changed, 928 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst
create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst
create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/faq.rst
create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
create mode 100644 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst
index b0522a4dd1073..09dee10d25928 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ whole; patches welcome!
gdb-kernel-debugging
kgdb
kselftest
+ kunit/index
.. only:: subproject and html
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..9b9bffe5d41a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=============
+API Reference
+=============
+.. toctree::
+
+ test
+
+This section documents the KUnit kernel testing API. It is divided into the
+following sections:
+
+================================= ==============================================
+:doc:`test` documents all of the standard testing API
+ excluding mocking or mocking related features.
+================================= ==============================================
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..d0ce19b1e1185
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+========
+Test API
+========
+
+This file documents all of the standard testing API excluding mocking or mocking
+related features.
+
+.. kernel-doc:: include/kunit/test.h
+ :internal:
+
+.. kernel-doc:: include/kunit/kunit-stream.h
+ :internal:
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/faq.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/faq.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..bf2095112d899
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/faq.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+==========================
+Frequently Asked Questions
+==========================
+
+How is this different from Autotest, kselftest, etc?
+====================================================
+KUnit is a unit testing framework. Autotest, kselftest (and some others) are
+not.
+
+A `unit test <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html>`_ is supposed to
+test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the name. A unit test should be
+the finest granularity of testing and as such should allow all possible code
+paths to be tested in the code under test; this is only possible if the code
+under test is very small and does not have any external dependencies outside of
+the test's control like hardware.
+
+There are no testing frameworks currently available for the kernel that do not
+require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM and all require
+tests to be written in userspace and run on the kernel under test; this is true
+for Autotest, kselftest, and some others, disqualifying any of them from being
+considered unit testing frameworks.
+
+Does KUnit support running on architectures other than UML?
+===========================================================
+
+Yes, well, mostly.
+
+For the most part, the KUnit core framework (what you use to write the tests)
+can compile to any architecture; it compiles like just another part of the
+kernel and runs when the kernel boots. However, there is some infrastructure,
+like the KUnit Wrapper (``tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py``) that does not support
+other architectures.
+
+In short, this means that, yes, you can run KUnit on other architectures, but
+it might require more work than using KUnit on UML.
+
+For more information, see :ref:`kunit-on-non-uml`.
+
+What is the difference between a unit test and these other kinds of tests?
+==========================================================================
+Most existing tests for the Linux kernel would be categorized as an integration
+test, or an end-to-end test.
+
+- A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the
+ name. A unit test should be the finest granularity of testing and as such
+ should allow all possible code paths to be tested in the code under test; this
+ is only possible if the code under test is very small and does not have any
+ external dependencies outside of the test's control like hardware.
+- An integration test tests the interaction between a minimal set of components,
+ usually just two or three. For example, someone might write an integration
+ test to test the interaction between a driver and a piece of hardware, or to
+ test the interaction between the userspace libraries the kernel provides and
+ the kernel itself; however, one of these tests would probably not test the
+ entire kernel along with hardware interactions and interactions with the
+ userspace.
+- An end-to-end test usually tests the entire system from the perspective of the
+ code under test. For example, someone might write an end-to-end test for the
+ kernel by installing a production configuration of the kernel on production
+ hardware with a production userspace and then trying to exercise some behavior
+ that depends on interactions between the hardware, the kernel, and userspace.
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..a317ab45bfe2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=========================================
+KUnit - Unit Testing for the Linux Kernel
+=========================================
+
+.. toctree::
+ :maxdepth: 2
+
+ start
+ usage
+ api/index
+ faq
+
+What is KUnit?
+==============
+
+KUnit is a lightweight unit testing and mocking framework for the Linux kernel.
+These tests are able to be run locally on a developer's workstation without a VM
+or special hardware.
+
+KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and
+Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining unit test
+cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing common
+infrastructure for running tests, and much more.
+
+Get started now: :doc:`start`
+
+Why KUnit?
+==========
+
+A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the
+name. A unit test should be the finest granularity of testing and as such should
+allow all possible code paths to be tested in the code under test; this is only
+possible if the code under test is very small and does not have any external
+dependencies outside of the test's control like hardware.
+
+Outside of KUnit, there are no testing frameworks currently
+available for the kernel that do not require installing the kernel on a test
+machine or in a VM and all require tests to be written in userspace running on
+the kernel; this is true for Autotest, and kselftest, disqualifying
+any of them from being considered unit testing frameworks.
+
+KUnit addresses the problem of being able to run tests without needing a virtual
+machine or actual hardware with User Mode Linux. User Mode Linux is a Linux
+architecture, like ARM or x86; however, unlike other architectures it compiles
+to a standalone program that can be run like any other program directly inside
+of a host operating system; to be clear, it does not require any virtualization
+support; it is just a regular program.
+
+KUnit is fast. Excluding build time, from invocation to completion KUnit can run
+several dozen tests in only 10 to 20 seconds; this might not sound like a big
+deal to some people, but having such fast and easy to run tests fundamentally
+changes the way you go about testing and even writing code in the first place.
+Linus himself said in his `git talk at Google
+<https://gist.github.com/lorn/1272686/revisions#diff-53c65572127855f1b003db4064a94573R874>`_:
+
+ "... a lot of people seem to think that performance is about doing the
+ same thing, just doing it faster, and that is not true. That is not what
+ performance is all about. If you can do something really fast, really
+ well, people will start using it differently."
+
+In this context Linus was talking about branching and merging,
+but this point also applies to testing. If your tests are slow, unreliable, are
+difficult to write, and require a special setup or special hardware to run,
+then you wait a lot longer to write tests, and you wait a lot longer to run
+tests; this means that tests are likely to break, unlikely to test a lot of
+things, and are unlikely to be rerun once they pass. If your tests are really
+fast, you run them all the time, every time you make a change, and every time
+someone sends you some code. Why trust that someone ran all their tests
+correctly on every change when you can just run them yourself in less time than
+it takes to read his / her test log?
+
+How do I use it?
+================
+
+* :doc:`start` - for new users of KUnit
+* :doc:`usage` - for a more detailed explanation of KUnit features
+* :doc:`api/index` - for the list of KUnit APIs used for testing
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..6dc229e46bb34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+===============
+Getting Started
+===============
+
+Installing dependencies
+=======================
+KUnit has the same dependencies as the Linux kernel. As long as you can build
+the kernel, you can run KUnit.
+
+KUnit Wrapper
+=============
+Included with KUnit is a simple Python wrapper that helps format the output to
+easily use and read KUnit output. It handles building and running the kernel, as
+well as formatting the output.
+
+The wrapper can be run with:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
+
+Creating a kunitconfig
+======================
+The Python script is a thin wrapper around Kbuild as such, it needs to be
+configured with a ``kunitconfig`` file. This file essentially contains the
+regular Kernel config, with the specific test targets as well.
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ git clone -b master https://kunit.googlesource.com/kunitconfig $PATH_TO_KUNITCONFIG_REPO
+ cd $PATH_TO_LINUX_REPO
+ ln -s $PATH_TO_KUNIT_CONFIG_REPO/kunitconfig kunitconfig
+
+You may want to add kunitconfig to your local gitignore.
+
+Verifying KUnit Works
+---------------------
+
+To make sure that everything is set up correctly, simply invoke the Python
+wrapper from your kernel repo:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
+
+.. note::
+ You may want to run ``make mrproper`` first.
+
+If everything worked correctly, you should see the following:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ Generating .config ...
+ Building KUnit Kernel ...
+ Starting KUnit Kernel ...
+
+followed by a list of tests that are run. All of them should be passing.
+
+.. note::
+ Because it is building a lot of sources for the first time, the ``Building
+ kunit kernel`` step may take a while.
+
+Writing your first test
+=======================
+
+In your kernel repo let's add some code that we can test. Create a file
+``drivers/misc/example.h`` with the contents:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ int misc_example_add(int left, int right);
+
+create a file ``drivers/misc/example.c``:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ #include <linux/errno.h>
+
+ #include "example.h"
+
+ int misc_example_add(int left, int right)
+ {
+ return left + right;
+ }
+
+Now add the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:
+
+.. code-block:: kconfig
+
+ config MISC_EXAMPLE
+ bool "My example"
+
+and the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:
+
+.. code-block:: make
+
+ obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE) += example.o
+
+Now we are ready to write the test. The test will be in
+``drivers/misc/example-test.c``:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ #include <kunit/test.h>
+ #include "example.h"
+
+ /* Define the test cases. */
+
+ static void misc_example_add_test_basic(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, misc_example_add(1, 0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, misc_example_add(1, 1));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, misc_example_add(-1, 1));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, misc_example_add(0, INT_MAX));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, misc_example_add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
+ }
+
+ static void misc_example_test_failure(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_FAIL(test, "This test never passes.");
+ }
+
+ static struct kunit_case misc_example_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(misc_example_add_test_basic),
+ KUNIT_CASE(misc_example_test_failure),
+ {}
+ };
+
+ static struct kunit_suite misc_example_test_suite = {
+ .name = "misc-example",
+ .test_cases = misc_example_test_cases,
+ };
+ kunit_test_suite(misc_example_test_suite);
+
+Now add the following to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:
+
+.. code-block:: kconfig
+
+ config MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST
+ bool "Test for my example"
+ depends on MISC_EXAMPLE && KUNIT
+
+and the following to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:
+
+.. code-block:: make
+
+ obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST) += example-test.o
+
+Now add it to your ``kunitconfig``:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+ CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE=y
+ CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
+
+Now you can run the test:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
+
+You should see the following failure:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+ ...
+ [16:08:57] [PASSED] misc-example:misc_example_add_test_basic
+ [16:08:57] [FAILED] misc-example:misc_example_test_failure
+ [16:08:57] EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/misc/example-test.c:17
+ [16:08:57] This test never passes.
+ ...
+
+Congrats! You just wrote your first KUnit test!
+
+Next Steps
+==========
+* Check out the :doc:`usage` page for a more
+ in-depth explanation of KUnit.
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..c6e69634e274b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,576 @@+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+===========
+Using KUnit
+===========
+
+The purpose of this document is to describe what KUnit is, how it works, how it
+is intended to be used, and all the concepts and terminology that are needed to
+understand it. This guide assumes a working knowledge of the Linux kernel and
+some basic knowledge of testing.
+
+For a high level introduction to KUnit, including setting up KUnit for your
+project, see :doc:`start`.
+
+Organization of this document
+=============================
+
+This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Isolating
+Behavior. The first covers what a unit test is and how to use KUnit to write
+them. The second covers how to use KUnit to isolate code and make it possible
+to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable.
+
+Testing
+=======
+
+What is KUnit?
+--------------
+
+"K" is short for "kernel" so "KUnit" is the "(Linux) Kernel Unit Testing
+Framework." KUnit is intended first and foremost for writing unit tests; it is
+general enough that it can be used to write integration tests; however, this is
+a secondary goal. KUnit has no ambition of being the only testing framework for
+the kernel; for example, it does not intend to be an end-to-end testing
+framework.
+
+What is Unit Testing?
+---------------------
+
+A `unit test <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html>`_ is a test that
+tests code at the smallest possible scope, a *unit* of code. In the C
+programming language that's a function.
+
+Unit tests should be written for all the publicly exposed functions in a
+compilation unit; so that is all the functions that are exported in either a
+*class* (defined below) or all functions which are **not** static.
+
+Writing Tests
+-------------
+
+Test Cases
+~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The fundamental unit in KUnit is the test case. A test case is a function with
+the signature ``void (*)(struct kunit *test)``. It calls a function to be tested
+and then sets *expectations* for what should happen. For example:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ void example_test_success(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ }
+
+ void example_test_failure(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_FAIL(test, "This test never passes.");
+ }
+
+In the above example ``example_test_success`` always passes because it does
+nothing; no expectations are set, so all expectations pass. On the other hand
+``example_test_failure`` always fails because it calls ``KUNIT_FAIL``, which is
+a special expectation that logs a message and causes the test case to fail.
+
+Expectations
+~~~~~~~~~~~~
+An *expectation* is a way to specify that you expect a piece of code to do
+something in a test. An expectation is called like a function. A test is made
+by setting expectations about the behavior of a piece of code under test; when
+one or more of the expectations fail, the test case fails and information about
+the failure is logged. For example:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ void add_test_basic(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
+ }
+
+In the above example ``add_test_basic`` makes a number of assertions about the
+behavior of a function called ``add``; the first parameter is always of type
+``struct kunit *``, which contains information about the current test context;
+the second parameter, in this case, is what the value is expected to be; the
+last value is what the value actually is. If ``add`` passes all of these
+expectations, the test case, ``add_test_basic`` will pass; if any one of these
+expectations fail, the test case will fail.
+
+It is important to understand that a test case *fails* when any expectation is
+violated; however, the test will continue running, potentially trying other
+expectations until the test case ends or is otherwise terminated. This is as
+opposed to *assertions* which are discussed later.
+
+To learn about more expectations supported by KUnit, see :doc:`api/test`.
+
+.. note::
+ A single test case should be pretty short, pretty easy to understand,
+ focused on a single behavior.
+
+For example, if we wanted to properly test the add function above, we would
+create additional tests cases which would each test a different property that an
+add function should have like this:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ void add_test_basic(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
+ }
+
+ void add_test_negative(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1));
+ }
+
+ void add_test_max(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
+ }
+
+ void add_test_overflow(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MIN, add(INT_MAX, 1));
+ }
+
+Notice how it is immediately obvious what all the properties that we are testing
+for are.
+
+Assertions
+~~~~~~~~~~
+
+KUnit also has the concept of an *assertion*. An assertion is just like an
+expectation except the assertion immediately terminates the test case if it is
+not satisfied.
+
+For example:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ static void mock_test_do_expect_default_return(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ struct mock_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
+ struct mock *mock = ctx->mock;
+ int param0 = 5, param1 = -5;
+ const char *two_param_types[] = {"int", "int"};
+ const void *two_params[] = {&param0, &param1};
+ const void *ret;
+
+ ret = mock->do_expect(mock,
+ "test_printk", test_printk,
+ two_param_types, two_params,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(two_params));
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -4, *((int *) ret));
+ }
+
+In this example, the method under test should return a pointer to a value, so
+if the pointer returned by the method is null or an errno, we don't want to
+bother continuing the test since the following expectation could crash the test
+case. `ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(...)` allows us to bail out of the test case if
+the appropriate conditions have not been satisfied to complete the test.
+
+Test Suites
+~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Now obviously one unit test isn't very helpful; the power comes from having
+many test cases covering all of your behaviors. Consequently it is common to
+have many *similar* tests; in order to reduce duplication in these closely
+related tests most unit testing frameworks provide the concept of a *test
+suite*, in KUnit we call it a *test suite*; all it is is just a collection of
+test cases for a unit of code with a set up function that gets invoked before
+every test cases and then a tear down function that gets invoked after every
+test case completes.
+
+Example:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(example_test_foo),
+ KUNIT_CASE(example_test_bar),
+ KUNIT_CASE(example_test_baz),
+ {}
+ };
+
+ static struct kunit_suite example_test_suite = {
+ .name = "example",
+ .init = example_test_init,
+ .exit = example_test_exit,
+ .test_cases = example_test_cases,
+ };
+ kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite);
+
+In the above example the test suite, ``example_test_suite``, would run the test
+cases ``example_test_foo``, ``example_test_bar``, and ``example_test_baz``,
+each would have ``example_test_init`` called immediately before it and would
+have ``example_test_exit`` called immediately after it.
+``kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite)`` registers the test suite with the
+KUnit test framework.
+
+.. note::
+ A test case will only be run if it is associated with a test suite.
+
+For a more information on these types of things see the :doc:`api/test`.
+
+Isolating Behavior
+==================
+
+The most important aspect of unit testing that other forms of testing do not
+provide is the ability to limit the amount of code under test to a single unit.
+In practice, this is only possible by being able to control what code gets run
+when the unit under test calls a function and this is usually accomplished
+through some sort of indirection where a function is exposed as part of an API
+such that the definition of that function can be changed without affecting the
+rest of the code base. In the kernel this primarily comes from two constructs,
+classes, structs that contain function pointers that are provided by the
+implementer, and architecture specific functions which have definitions selected
+at compile time.
+
+Classes
+-------
+
+Classes are not a construct that is built into the C programming language;
+however, it is an easily derived concept. Accordingly, pretty much every project
+that does not use a standardized object oriented library (like GNOME's GObject)
+has their own slightly different way of doing object oriented programming; the
+Linux kernel is no exception.
+
+The central concept in kernel object oriented programming is the class. In the
+kernel, a *class* is a struct that contains function pointers. This creates a
+contract between *implementers* and *users* since it forces them to use the
+same function signature without having to call the function directly. In order
+for it to truly be a class, the function pointers must specify that a pointer
+to the class, known as a *class handle*, be one of the parameters; this makes
+it possible for the member functions (also known as *methods*) to have access
+to member variables (more commonly known as *fields*) allowing the same
+implementation to have multiple *instances*.
+
+Typically a class can be *overridden* by *child classes* by embedding the
+*parent class* in the child class. Then when a method provided by the child
+class is called, the child implementation knows that the pointer passed to it is
+of a parent contained within the child; because of this, the child can compute
+the pointer to itself because the pointer to the parent is always a fixed offset
+from the pointer to the child; this offset is the offset of the parent contained
+in the child struct. For example:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct shape {
+ int (*area)(struct shape *this);
+ };
+
+ struct rectangle {
+ struct shape parent;
+ int length;
+ int width;
+ };
+
+ int rectangle_area(struct shape *this)
+ {
+ struct rectangle *self = container_of(this, struct shape, parent);
+
+ return self->length * self->width;
+ };
+
+ void rectangle_new(struct rectangle *self, int length, int width)
+ {
+ self->parent.area = rectangle_area;
+ self->length = length;
+ self->width = width;
+ }
+
+In this example (as in most kernel code) the operation of computing the pointer
+to the child from the pointer to the parent is done by ``container_of``.
+
+Faking Classes
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In order to unit test a piece of code that calls a method in a class, the
+behavior of the method must be controllable, otherwise the test ceases to be a
+unit test and becomes an integration test.
+
+A fake just provides an implementation of a piece of code that is different than
+what runs in a production instance, but behaves identically from the standpoint
+of the callers; this is usually done to replace a dependency that is hard to
+deal with, or is slow.
+
+A good example for this might be implementing a fake EEPROM that just stores the
+"contents" in an internal buffer. For example, let's assume we have a class that
+represents an EEPROM:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct eeprom {
+ ssize_t (*read)(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, char *buffer, size_t count);
+ ssize_t (*write)(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, const char *buffer, size_t count);
+ };
+
+And we want to test some code that buffers writes to the EEPROM:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct eeprom_buffer {
+ ssize_t (*write)(struct eeprom_buffer *this, const char *buffer, size_t count);
+ int flush(struct eeprom_buffer *this);
+ size_t flush_count; /* Flushes when buffer exceeds flush_count. */
+ };
+
+ struct eeprom_buffer *new_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom);
+ void destroy_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom);
+
+We can easily test this code by *faking out* the underlying EEPROM:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct fake_eeprom {
+ struct eeprom parent;
+ char contents[FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE];
+ };
+
+ ssize_t fake_eeprom_read(struct eeprom *parent, size_t offset, char *buffer, size_t count)
+ {
+ struct fake_eeprom *this = container_of(parent, struct fake_eeprom, parent);
+
+ count = min(count, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE - offset);
+ memcpy(buffer, this->contents + offset, count);
+
+ return count;
+ }
+
+ ssize_t fake_eeprom_write(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, const char *buffer, size_t count)
+ {
+ struct fake_eeprom *this = container_of(parent, struct fake_eeprom, parent);
+
+ count = min(count, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE - offset);
+ memcpy(this->contents + offset, buffer, count);
+
+ return count;
+ }
+
+ void fake_eeprom_init(struct fake_eeprom *this)
+ {
+ this->parent.read = fake_eeprom_read;
+ this->parent.write = fake_eeprom_write;
+ memset(this->contents, 0, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE);
+ }
+
+We can now use it to test ``struct eeprom_buffer``:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct eeprom_buffer_test {
+ struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom;
+ struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer;
+ };
+
+ static void eeprom_buffer_test_does_not_write_until_flush(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
+ struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer;
+ struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom;
+ char buffer[] = {0xff};
+
+ eeprom_buffer->flush_count = SIZE_MAX;
+
+ eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0);
+
+ eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0);
+
+ eeprom_buffer->flush(eeprom_buffer);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff);
+ }
+
+ static void eeprom_buffer_test_flushes_after_flush_count_met(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
+ struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer;
+ struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom;
+ char buffer[] = {0xff};
+
+ eeprom_buffer->flush_count = 2;
+
+ eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0);
+
+ eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff);
+ }
+
+ static void eeprom_buffer_test_flushes_increments_of_flush_count(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
+ struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer;
+ struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom;
+ char buffer[] = {0xff, 0xff};
+
+ eeprom_buffer->flush_count = 2;
+
+ eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0);
+
+ eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 2);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff);
+ /* Should have only flushed the first two bytes. */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[2], 0);
+ }
+
+ static int eeprom_buffer_test_init(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx;
+
+ ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx);
+
+ ctx->fake_eeprom = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx->fake_eeprom), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->fake_eeprom);
+ fake_eeprom_init(ctx->fake_eeprom);
+
+ ctx->eeprom_buffer = new_eeprom_buffer(&ctx->fake_eeprom->parent);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->eeprom_buffer);
+
+ test->priv = ctx;
+
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ static void eeprom_buffer_test_exit(struct kunit *test)
+ {
+ struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
+
+ destroy_eeprom_buffer(ctx->eeprom_buffer);
+ }
+
+.. _kunit-on-non-uml:
+
+KUnit on non-UML architectures
+==============================
+
+By default KUnit uses UML as a way to provide dependencies for code under test.
+Under most circumstances KUnit's usage of UML should be treated as an
+implementation detail of how KUnit works under the hood. Nevertheless, there
+are instances where being able to run architecture specific code, or test
+against real hardware is desirable. For these reasons KUnit supports running on
+other architectures.
+
+Running existing KUnit tests on non-UML architectures
+-----------------------------------------------------
+
+There are some special considerations when running existing KUnit tests on
+non-UML architectures:
+
+* Hardware may not be deterministic, so a test that always passes or fails
+ when run under UML may not always do so on real hardware.
+* Hardware and VM environments may not be hermetic. KUnit tries its best to
+ provide a hermetic environment to run tests; however, it cannot manage state
+ that it doesn't know about outside of the kernel. Consequently, tests that
+ may be hermetic on UML may not be hermetic on other architectures.
+* Some features and tooling may not be supported outside of UML.
+* Hardware and VMs are slower than UML.
+
+None of these are reasons not to run your KUnit tests on real hardware; they are
+only things to be aware of when doing so.
+
+The biggest impediment will likely be that certain KUnit features and
+infrastructure may not support your target environment. For example, at this
+time the KUnit Wrapper (``tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py``) does not work outside
+of UML. Unfortunately, there is no way around this. Using UML (or even just a
+particular architecture) allows us to make a lot of assumptions that make it
+possible to do things which might otherwise be impossible.
+
+Nevertheless, all core KUnit framework features are fully supported on all
+architectures, and using them is straightforward: all you need to do is to take
+your kunitconfig, your Kconfig options for the tests you would like to run, and
+merge them into whatever config your are using for your platform. That's it!
+
+For example, let's say you have the following kunitconfig:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+ CONFIG_KUNIT=y
+ CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
+
+If you wanted to run this test on an x86 VM, you might add the following config
+options to your ``.config``:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+ CONFIG_KUNIT=y
+ CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
+ CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y
+ CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y
+
+All these new options do is enable support for a common serial console needed
+for logging.
+
+Next, you could build a kernel with these tests as follows:
+
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ make ARCH=x86 olddefconfig
+ make ARCH=x86
+
+Once you have built a kernel, you could run it on QEMU as follows:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm \
+ -m 1024 \
+ -kernel arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage \
+ -append 'console=ttyS0' \
+ --nographic
+
+Interspersed in the kernel logs you might see the following:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+ TAP version 14
+ # Subtest: example
+ 1..1
+ # example_simple_test: initializing
+ ok 1 - example_simple_test
+ ok 1 - example
+
+Congratulations, you just ran a KUnit test on the x86 architecture!
+
+Writing new tests for other architectures
+-----------------------------------------
+
+The first thing you must do is ask yourself whether it is necessary to write a
+KUnit test for a specific architecture, and then whether it is necessary to
+write that test for a particular piece of hardware. In general, writing a test
+that depends on having access to a particular piece of hardware or software (not
+included in the Linux source repo) should be avoided at all costs.
+
+Even if you only ever plan on running your KUnit test on your hardware
+configuration, other people may want to run your tests and may not have access
+to your hardware. If you write your test to run on UML, then anyone can run your
+tests without knowing anything about your particular setup, and you can still
+run your tests on your hardware setup just by compiling for your architecture.
+
+.. important::
+ Always prefer tests that run on UML to tests that only run under a particular
+ architecture, and always prefer tests that run under QEMU or another easy
+ (and monitarily free) to obtain software environment to a specific piece of
+ hardware.
+
+Nevertheless, there are still valid reasons to write an architecture or hardware
+specific test: for example, you might want to test some code that really belongs
+in ``arch/some-arch/*``. Even so, try your best to write the test so that it
+does not depend on physical hardware: if some of your test cases don't need the
+hardware, only require the hardware for tests that actually need it.
+
+Now that you have narrowed down exactly what bits are hardware specific, the
+actual procedure for writing and running the tests is pretty much the same as
+writing normal KUnit tests. One special caveat is that you have to reset
+hardware state in between test cases; if this is not possible, you may only be
+able to run one test case per invocation.
+
+.. TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): Add an actual example of an architecture
+ dependent KUnit test.
--
2.23.0.rc1.153.gdeed80330f-goog
^permalinkrawreply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread

*Re: [PATCH v12 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations
2019-08-13 0:33 ` Brendan Higgins@ 2019-08-13 5:02 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-08-13 5:04 ` Brendan Higgins0 siblings, 1 reply; 60+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Boyd @ 2019-08-13 5:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brendan Higgins
Cc: frowand.list, gregkh, jpoimboe, keescook, kieran.bingham, mcgrof,
peterz, robh, shuah, tytso, yamada.masahiro, devicetree,
dri-devel, kunit-dev, linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-kbuild,
linux-kernel, linux-kselftest, linux-nvdimm, linux-um,
Alexander.Levin, Tim.Bird, amir73il, dan.carpenter, daniel,
jdike, joel, julia.lawall, khilman, knut.omang, logang, mpe,
pmladek, rdunlap, richard, rientjes, rostedt, wfg
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 17:33:52)
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:57:00PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:08)
> > > + */
> > > +#define KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, condition) \
> > > + KUNIT_TRUE_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, condition)
> >
> > A lot of these macros seem double indented.
>
> In a case you pointed out in the preceding patch, I was just keeping the
> arguments column aligned.
>
> In this case I am just indenting two tabs for a line continuation. I
> thought I found other instances in the kernel that did this early on
> (and that's also what the Linux kernel vim plugin wanted me to do).
> After a couple of spot checks, it seems like one tab for this kind of
> line continuation seems more common. I personally don't feel strongly
> about any particular version. I just want to know now what the correct
> indentation is for macros before I go through and change them all.
>
> I think there are three cases:
>
> #define macro0(param0, param1) \
> a_really_long_macro(...)
>
> In this first case, I use two tabs for the first indent, I think you are
> telling me this should be one tab.
Yes. Should be one.
>
> #define macro1(param0, param1) { \
> statement_in_a_block0; \
> statement_in_a_block1; \
> ... \
> }
>
> In this case, every line is in a block and is indented as it would be in
> a function body. I think you are okay with this, and now that I am
> thinking about it, what I think you are proposing for macro0 will make
> these two cases more consistent.
>
> #define macro2(param0, \
> param1, \
> param2, \
> param3, \
> ..., \
> paramn) ... \
>
> In this last case, the body would be indented as in macro0, or macro1,
> but the parameters passed into the macro are column aligned, consistent
> with one of the acceptable ways of formatting function parameters that
> don't fit on a single line.
>
> In all cases, I put 1 space in between the closing parameter paren and
> the line continuation `\`, if only one `\` is needed. Otherwise, I align
> all the `\s` to the 80th column. Is this okay, or would you prefer that
> I align them all to the 80th column, or something else?
>
This all sounds fine and I'm not nitpicking this style. Just the double
tabs making lines longer than required.
^permalinkrawreply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread